VIEWPOINT

Engaging a new generation ofgraduates

Sue ShawHuman Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour Division,

Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK, and

David FairhurstMcDonald’s Restaurants, London, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of generational difference and reflecton how this might impact on organisational approaches to graduate development.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper explores the characteristics of Generation Ygraduates and the implications of their entry into the workplace for organisations’ graduatelearning and development programmes, drawing on academic and popular literature and theorganisational experience of one major employer of young people.

Findings – This paper presents a profile of Generation Y and suggests that the learning styles andexpectations of this group are very different from earlier generations. Using its experiences ofemploying Generation Y the case study organisation suggests future graduate development schemesneed to utilise the latest technology to deliver audio-visually rich, multi-tasking challenges whichrequire a collaborative approach, offer instant feedback whilst at the same time recognising that itsparticipants may not see the need for or indeed take responsibility for their own development or itsperceived failings.

Research limitations/implications – The paper suggests that further in-depth research intoGeneration Y and organisational graduate development schemes is necessary to determine how farsuch schemes are meeting expectations.

Practical implications – Employers of graduates need to evaluate the effectiveness of theirprogrammes.

Originality/value – The main contribution of this paper is to highlight how employers, andparticularly graduate development managers, need to re-examine their graduate development schemesto ensure they are not only meeting the needs and expectations of the organisation but also theindividuals for whom they are designed.

Keywords Graduates, Individual development, Age groups, Human resource management,Training evaluation

Paper type Case study

IntroductionThe generational school of thought asserts that organisations must recognise theinfluence and work preferences of different generations to be effective in the future. Ageneration has been defined as a group which shares both the same birth years andsignificant life events (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007). So a generation begins witha birth rate increase and ends when it declines and it represents a group who have asimilar world view grounded in defining social or historical events that have occurredduring that generation’s development years (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

ET50,5

366

Education þ TrainingVol. 50 No. 5, 2008pp. 366-378q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0040-0912DOI 10.1108/00400910810889057

Supporters of this school of thought argue that people who grow up in different timeperiods have very different sets of beliefs, values, attitudes and expectations which inturn impact their behaviour generally and in the workplace (Glass, 2007).

The entry of Generation Y into employment means that for the first time the workforce contains four generations spanning more than 60 years: Traditionalists, BabyBoomers, Generation X and Generation Y, with the latter three being the primarygenerations. Notwithstanding the variations in how they are described in the literatureand how their start and end dates are classified, there is some agreement amongstpractitioners and academics about how these different generations are characterisedand on the consequences of this for the way they are managed (Eisner, 2005; Zemkeet al., 2000). However, this is by no means universal with critics of the generationalperspective challenging both the definition of generation and the idea of a generationgap or intergenerational difference (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007; Johnson andLopes, 2008; Jorgensen, 2003; Giancola, 2006). Supporters of the generational schoolhave focused on both the conceptual distinctiveness and characteristics of each of thefour generations as well as the managerial implications of an intergenerational workforce (See Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007, for a review of the dominant workplacevalues and attitudes across the four generations). Writers have argued that anunderstanding of generational differences, the influence of work environmentpreferences and the impact on work motivation and related work outcomes areimportant in the development not only of recruitment, retention and reward strategiesbut approaches to training and development as well (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007;Glass, 2007).

As the latest generation to enter the workforce, Generation Y is “the mosttechnically literate, educated and ethnically diverse generation in history (Eisner, 2005,p. 6) and at the graduate level there has been considerable interest” not only inattracting, and retaining this talent but in developing it as well (Hayman and Lorman,2004). At the same time, there is evidence that this generation of graduates places agreat deal of importance on personal development and continuous learning (Terjesenet al., 2007). Whilst there has been research into the pedagogical challenges of teachingGeneration Y and the strategies needed to enhance their learning, not least of all in theHigher Education sector (Shih and Allen, 2007; Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil, 2004), therehas been less emphasis on what challenges this generation presents for managers oflearning and development within the workplace.

This paper is approached from a generational perspective. It explores theimplications for organisational learning and development programmes of the entry ofGeneration Y graduates into the workplace. It begins with an exploration of whoGeneration Y is and how their characteristics, learning style and expectations havebeen defined in the literature. It then goes on to consider the implications of this for onelarge multinational employer: McDonald’s Restaurants. It concludes with a discussionof the implications for graduate training and development programmes in general.

Generation YGeneration Y is the name given to the most recent demographic group to have enteredhigher education and the world of work. The start and end dates, which define theparameters of Generation Y, vary from beginning dates of 1977-1982 to ending dates of1994-2003 (Shih and Allen, 2007). Howe and Strauss (2000) use the term “Millennials”

A newgeneration of

graduates

367

to describe those people whose birth years fall between 1982 and 2000 and whilst“Generation Y” and “Millennials” remain the two most common designations, for thisgroup of young people, a number of other terms have emerged including: “The NetGeneration”, the “Dot-Coms”, the “Echo-Boomers”, the “iGeneration”, the “MeGeneration”, “Generation–D” (digital), and the “Nexters”.

Notwithstanding the various labels that have been attached to this demographicgroup, many writers have asserted that Generation Y possesses differentcharacteristics and different expectations from the generations which have precededit in the workplace (Glass, 2007; Broadbridge et al., 2007; Tulgan and Martin, 2001).Furthermore, there is agreement on this generation’s impact both as employees and asconsumers (Shih and Allen, 2007).

Characteristics of Generation YWhilst there has been a lot of discussion in the management and organisationalliterature in recent years, on generational differences, much of the work including thaton Generation Y has been based on observation rather than large scale empiricalfindings and has been reproduced in the popular literature (Jorgensen, 2003). With theexception of studies conducted by Eisner (2005) and Broadbridge et al. (2007) there hasbeen very little academic work on the characteristics and expectations of Generation Y.A review of both the popular and the available academic literature attributes a numberof very specific characteristics to these Millennials and, whilst there is not totalagreement, there is broad consensus of what these characteristics are. Not only doMillennials look different with their body piercing, tattoos, lack of wrist watch andtheir electronic decorations – iPods, Blackberrys and laptops (Hira, 2007) – but theybehave and think differently as well.

Writers have asserted that above all Generation Y is “techno- savvy” and at easewith the wired world, the first workplace generation to be digital natives:

It is more than technically literate; it is continually wired, plugged in, and connected todigitally streaming information, entertainment, and contacts (Eisner, 2005, p. 6).

Whilst there is broad agreement on what constitutes these dimensions there areseemingly contradictions between some of them (Martin, 2005). Millennials are describedas confident, independent and individualistic, self reliant and entrepreneurial (Martin,2005) and at the same time socially active, collaborative, team oriented and used tohaving structure in their lives as a result of the type of parenting they have received(Glass, 2007; Shih and Allen, 2007). This manifests itself in a desire for clear directionsand managerial support in what to do but at the same time “a demand for freedom andflexibility to get the task done in their own way, at their own pace” (Martin, 2005, p. 40).Moreover, despite being independent they are seen as being emotionally needy andconsequently, constantly seeking approval and praise (Crumpacker and Crumpacker,2007). In terms of work they are capable of multi-tasking quickly (Freifield, 2007), areresults oriented and have an appetite for work and pressure (Shih and Allen, 2007) andabove all expect to be empowered (Morton, 2002). At the same time they exhibit a highexternal locus of control, being significantly more likely to attribute their fate to forcesbeyond their control than the equivalent Baby Boomer (Twenge et al., 2004).

What is more, they seek work life balance and if forced will select family and friendsover work (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007). Finally, their expectation that they

ET50,5

368

will change jobs frequently means they actively seek out jobs that provide training(Morton, 2002) and Generation Y’s approach to learning and development is exploredin the next section.

Generation Y’s learning characteristics, styles and expectationsThe different characteristics and attitude to career development attributed toGeneration Y suggest that the millennial learner’s requirements and expectations of thelearning environment are going to be different from their predecessors (Howe andStrauss, 2000; Partridge and Hallam, 2006; Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil, 2004). Much ofthe research into this generation’s learning style focuses on their experiences asuniversity undergraduates although similar observations about Generation Y’slearning preferences in the work place exist in the popular literature (Raines, 2002).Above all technology has shaped how Generation Y learns and processes information(Martin, 2005). Research into their experiences as students in higher education,suggests Generation Y enter university with “very different learning backgrounds,experiences, preferences, attitudes and skills sets” which call for different pedagogiesand learning style strategies together with new forms of learning environment (Shihand Allen, 2007, p. 96). These authors argue that Generation Y, given that they exhibitmany of the characteristics and traits discussed above, require structure both withinthe classroom and in relation to learning administration and infrastructure. They go onto argue that experiential learning is the dominant pedagogy with “hands –on andinteractive assignments and in class activities”, “team-work” and “collaborativepresentations” resonating well with the millennials’ predisposition to stay connectedand engaged (Shih and Allen, 2007, p. 98). Alongside structure, teamwork andexperiential activities Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil (2004) add technology, entertainmentand excitement to Generation Y’s learning and communication preferences on campus,whilst Partridge and Hallam (2006) argue that curriculum should include real worldactivities and perspectives as well as being customisable and flexible.

Once in the labour market, Generation Y is perceived to be high maintenance (Hira,2007) typically motivated by a desire to enhance professional skills in order to remainmarketable (Holden and Harte, 2004; King, 2003; Sayers, 2007). Arguably, the reductionin lifetime employment has made Generation Y graduates more aware of the need forconstant skill development and updating and as a consequence more likely to play aproactive role in their own career planning and execution (Westerman and Yamamura,2007). At the same time there is evidence that wide scale graduate support for the “ newcareer” or “post organisational career patterns” is limited or at least should be treatedwith degree of caution. King’ s study (King, 2003) suggests that whilst employability isof major concern, many graduates do expect to develop it within the conventionalorganisational career model. In their study of business school graduates Mayrhoferet al. (2005) go further and argue that graduates’ orientation to either a traditional orpost-organisational career pattern is related to their behavioural characteristics andpersonality traits, thereby lending support to Jorgensen’s (2003) argument for rejectingthe notion of distinct generational difference and tailored workforce strategies.

This generation perceives challenging and meaningful assignments to be far moreimportant for their self development than lifelong employment (Baruch, 2004).Consequently, Millennials constantly seek opportunities to learn and growprofessionally (Eisner, 2005) and embark on fast track leadership programmes

A newgeneration of

graduates

369

(Glass, 2007). They are characterised not only by a desire to have a portable career buteven greater degrees of personal flexibility, professional satisfaction and immediacy,wanting to and needing to learn and seeing continuous learning, like change, as a wayof life (Sayers, 2007). They also value institutionalised learning (Huntley, 2006), comefrom the generation who perceive education as “cool” (Martin, 2005) and reactpositively to e-learning (Allerton, 2001). Such characteristics reinforce the perceptionthat this generation is high maintenance and needy (Martin, 2005). Nevertheless, as aresult of the positive reinforcement and self-esteem building they received from theirparents it is asserted that they may need help with accepting constructive criticism andmanaging conflict (Dolezalek, 2007).

At the same time, it is suggested that Millennial graduates see a strong need forrelevance in their training. In his study of the 2006 Library staff CAVAL TrainingNeed Survey Data across Australia, New Zealand and Asia, Sayers (2007) findsevidence that professional development preferences are moving away from higherlevel conceptual issues towards vocational, work based skills. These findings reinforceSheahan’s (2005, p. 156) assertion that:

Generation Y . . . will embrace training, providing it is relevant, interactive, personalised andentertaining. And most of all providing it is effective and practical. . . You will need to be verydiligent in who you choose to do that training, as always, you will need to make sure theworkplace is open and conducive to the application of skills transferred from the trainingroom.

Whilst organisations invest large sums of money in graduate developmentprogrammes (Viney et al., 1997) there is evidence to suggest that such programmesmay not necessarily be benefiting the employer or meeting the needs and expectationsof Generation Y (Bedingfield, 2005; McDermott et al., 2006). Consequently,organisations may well ask how development programmes can more effectivelyengage this group of young people. The next section of this article explores this issuefrom the perspective of one large global organisation: McDonald’s Restaurants.

Engaging a new generation at McDonald’sFollowing the Howe and Strauss (2000) assertion that Generation Y birth years fallbetween 1982 and 2000, this year the first Millennials will be celebrating their 26thbirthday. So McDonald’s will have been employing members of this new generation fora decade and with almost three-quarters of McDonald’s staff currently 25 years old orunder, it means that the company has more experience than most in recruiting,training, and earning the commitment of Millennials. Indeed, McDonald’s can point toindependent research that highlights the success they have had in this area.

In 2006 Furnham conducted extensive research into the impact of working atMcDonald’s on young people. His findings not only captured evidence from 100Millennials working for the company – he also spoke to their parents and partners,managers, teachers and lecturers, working friends, and friends who were unemployed.Furnham found that:

[. . .] far from being the monotonous, un enjoyable, and unchallenging experience that is oftenassumed, the young McDonald’s Staff-members studied were exceptionally engaged,satisfied, and committed to their jobs. In fact, 90 per cent of McDonald’s staff showed highlevels of engagement. These engagement levels are considerably higher than those of their

ET50,5

370

working friends, and substantially higher than that found in other workplaces wherecomparable studies have been undertaken (Furnham, 2006, p. 3).

Furnham concluded that perceived superior opportunities for development andpromotion contribute to these higher levels of engagement, a finding which supportsthe views of other studies which have found that Millennials are motivated by a desireto enhance their professional skills (Sayers, 2007) and that they seek opportunities tolearn and grow professionally (Eisner, 2005). Indeed, Furnham states that:

[. . .] according to the McDonald’s staff and their working friends, this higher level ofengagement could be attributed in part to superior development and promotional opportunities– 62 per cent of McDonald’s Staff believe that their opportunities for promotion were betterthan their friends in their jobs. By comparison, only 25 per cent of their friends considered theirpromotion opportunities better than their friends (Furnham, 2006, p. 3).

The remainder of this paper will take the form of a review of the way McDonald’s hasevolved its development programmes over the past decade to achieve the levels ofemployee satisfaction and engagement described by Furnham.

A meeting of mindsIt is clear from the research cited earlier that Generation Y are a distinct group withemployment needs and cultural differences which distinguish them from the othergenerational groups in the workplace (i.e. Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, andGeneration X). Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that the need to accommodatethese differences can prove challenging for some members of the older generations; asituation which appears to be rooted in their own early-career experiences. Fresh out ofuniversity many of these individuals were obliged to comply with the norms of theorganisation they joined; an obligation they rapidly grew to resent. In fact, theirdescriptions of their early years of employment suggest that they wasted a significantamount of time and energy slowly subverting their workplaces until they eventuallycame to reflect their own values.

Today, we would suggest that the evidence of their efforts is all around us: Do youwear a suit and tie in the office every day? Do you work a strict 9-5 with an hour forlunch? Do you address your boss in formal terms – “Mr X” or “Mrs Y”? Answer “no” toone or more of these questions and we would suggest that your workplace has beensubverted by a younger generation at some point in the last three decades. We are notsuggesting that these changes are not for the better – for members of our generationthey clearly are – we are simply suggesting that they would have been implementedmore quickly and with considerably less effort if older generations had not habituallytaken an inflexible, entrenched position towards the accommodation of generationaldifferences.

Furthermore, the cost of this inflexibility becomes clear when one considers thetools and techniques that would have been used to recruit and train across generations.With normative data sets for selection tests having been created using subjectssampled from an older generation, there is a strong likelihood that the brightest andbest of the younger generation may have been overlooked. As a result, subsequentgraduate training and development programmes would have been neither as efficientnor effective as they could have been. We are not saying that these programmes failedto deliver. They probably did – eventually. We are simply saying that they could have

A newgeneration of

graduates

371

done so more quickly and with considerably less effort if they had been designed tomeet the needs of the younger generation in the first place.

A decade ago, McDonald’s customer service training encouraged participants toshare examples of their own customer experiences – good and bad. At this time theexamples given by trainees would have been almost exclusively rooted in face-to-faceinteractions in shops and restaurants. As a result, connecting these to requiredbehaviours was a straightforward process. Today’s Millennial participants, however,would include examples of unreliable vendors on internet auction sites, and the “noquibble” returns policies of online retailers, thereby making the connections rather lessstraightforward.

Consequently, McDonald’s have found that the first requirement for the design andimplementation of effective graduate training and development programmes for theMillennial Generation is an acknowledgement that they are different. They thinkdifferently, act differently, and have different values to older generations. It is then ajust short step to acknowledging that for recruitment and training to be effective itmust reflect the differences of the new generation.

As the above discussion has shown Generation Y have very specific characteristicsthat define them as a distinct generation with a distinct culture of their own. Whenreviewing McDonald’s experience of engaging and developing Millennial graduates anumber stand out as being of particular interest.

Digital nativesIn 2005 Rupert Murdoch spoke to the American Society of Newspaper Editors:

Like many of you in this room, I’m a digital immigrant. I wasn’t weaned on the web, norcoddled on a computer. Instead, I grew up in a highly centralized world where news andinformation were tightly controlled by a few editors, who deemed to tell us what we could andshould know. My two young daughters, on the other hand, will be digital natives. They’llnever know a world without ubiquitous broadband internet access (Murdoch, 2005).

The peculiar challenge then, is for us digital immigrants – many of whom are in positions todetermine how news is assembled and disseminated – to apply a digital mindset to a new setof challenges.

Murdoch clearly identified the most obviously different characteristic of the Millennialgeneration – their seemingly effortless use of technology. As well as supporting theconclusions of the academic community (Eisner, 2005) we believe Murdoch’sobservations are also intuitively correct. For Millennials PCs, mobile phones, andportable music players have never been “inventions” because they have always beenaround. Furthermore, they do not use these devices in the same way members of earliergenerations use them, one at a time. Millennials are simultaneously surfing the web,texting friends, and listening to their iPods – all the time with one eye on the TV. AsMurdoch recognises, this “digital mindset” creates some new challenges for newspapereditors and training professionals alike.

McDonald’s have found that Millennials tend to be excellent multi-taskers, rapidlyassimilating information from a number of different sources. A decade ago, however,most training programmes were designed around individual tasks and the slow,controlled delivery of information, often from a single source. Furthermore, the formatof that information was often text heavy compared to the audio-visually rich

ET50,5

372

environments Millennials have created for themselves in online communities such asMySpace, or YouTube. Indeed, as the “Google Generation”, they have grown up at atime when the wealth of meta-tagged and hyperlinked information they can access atthe click of a button is enormous which contrasts markedly with the linear andsequential nature of many legacy training programmes.

It has also been noted by the company that access to this practically limitless pool ofinformation makes Millennials particularly demanding and questioning. Again webelieve that this is intuitively correct. Millennials have grown up being encouraged toquestion their parents and their teachers and watching broadcast journalists engagedin the forthright questioning of establishment figures. Such behaviours are in theireyes normal, and asking tough questions of their employers is a natural extension ofthe way they have been raised.

However, McDonald’s have observed that their forthright questioning does notmean they are arrogant – or, for that matter, even self-confident – in a workplacesetting. The company’s experience is that constant feedback from parents and teachersmeans Millennials are actually far more emotionally “needy” than more “practice”earlier generations.

The need to belongAs reported by a number of researchers including Glass (2007) and Shih and Allen(2007), Generation Y has a high level of social consciousness. Indeed Howe and Straussdraw parallels between Millennials and the “Hero” generation which fought in WorldWar Two. For the earlier generation, growing up protected by their parents in theaftermath of World War One and through deep economic depression, then coming ofage during the Second World War meant that they looked to those around them formutual support.

In comparison Millennials have grown up with parents attempting to shield themfrom the threats highlighted by a 24/7 rolling news culture headlining economic andsocial breakdown, predatory paedophiles, al-Qaeda, and global warming. As a resultmany Millennials report feeling besieged by terrorism and impending environmentalcatastrophe and, once again, they are looking to their peers for mutual support.

This goes some of the way towards explaining the strong loyalty Millennials havetowards family, friends, and communities (both real and virtual) and McDonald’s haverecognised that some will put these loyalties ahead of workplace commitments.McDonald’s also believe that it is logical to conclude that giving Millennials theworkplace flexibility to live the lifestyle they want outside of work is no longer a “perk”as it may have been seen by earlier generations. For Millennials it is a fundamentalright.

When it comes to training, McDonald’s have found that Millennials greatly prefer towork collaboratively with others rather than on their own – once again reinforcing thefindings of Glass (2007) and Shih and Allen (2007) – and that they thrive on immediatefeedback. Millennials seem hard-wired to demand instant gratification and instantrewards; all of which is a far cry from the resolutely individual endeavour of churningthrough the pre-reading and questionnaires which accompany so many trainingprogrammes. Indeed, feedback from employees that have worked in otherorganisations suggests that if an employer persists with this more traditional

A newgeneration of

graduates

373

approach Millennial trainees will collaborate anyway – posting summary notes andanswer sheets on social networking sites for their colleagues to download.

As a result McDonald’s are redesigning their development programmes forGeneration Y employees to embrace the differences of the Millennial generation,utilising the latest technology to deliver audio-visually rich, multi-tasking challengeswhich require a collaborative approach and offer instant feedback. A good example ofthis is the company’s 2008 “Service Leadership” course: a one-day course forRestaurant Shift Managers which is delivered in-store. The backbone of theprogramme is an light-hearted 20-minute DVD which follows the fortunes of “Sam”, aShift Manager, as he makes the transition from being focused solely on kitchenprocesses to managing the total McDonald’s experience for customers and employeesalike. The video is viewed in five “episodes”, each episode being no more thanfive-minutes long, interspersed with challenging interactive tasks in the dining area ofthe restaurant to reinforce the key conclusions of the video. Early feedback fromprogramme participants is extremely positive, reinforcing Jonas-Dwyer and Pospisil’s(2004) recognition of the need for technology, entertainment, and excitement andPartridge and Hallam’s (2006) argument that training should include real worldactivities and perspectives.

However, McDonald’s have also realised that even with such “Millennial-friendly”initiatives in place, there is still one final characteristic of Generation Y which needs tobe managed if they are rapidly and cost-effectively to convert raw graduates intohighly-engaged and effective employees.

The abandonment of responsibilityThe shift in young people’s locus of control over the past four decades, highlightedabove (Twenge et al., 2004), has important implications for the design of graduatetraining programmes in two ways:

(1) An increasingly external locus of control means that graduates are less likely totake personal accountability for their development, with the result that thecurrent trend for self-managed learning methodologies will become lesseffective.

(2) A growing tendency to identify external factors as contributing to outcomes(particularly negative outcomes) means that training programmes will receiveincreasing levels of criticism from participants if they fail to effectively developthem, rather than participants acknowledging that they could have workedharder or shown more commitment.

In other words, even though trainees may fail to take any responsibility for their owndevelopment, they are likely to blame either the training or their trainers for any lack ofprogress: a prospect which may leave many older trainers with a growing sense ofdespair! At McDonald’s, however, it has been recognised that this despair is simply acase of looking at Millennial behaviours through the eyes of an older generation.

The relatively recent trend for self-managed training is just that – a trend. Trendscan be reversed. And as for training programmes failing their participants – howabout some measurement? HR is often far too keen to measure activity rather thanresults. Yet by putting in place meaningful measures that prove the effectiveness of

ET50,5

374

training programmes, criticism from participants can be swiftly and effectively dealtwith.

In short, McDonald’s believe that to create graduate development programmeswhich will rapidly and cost-effectively convert Millennials into highly-engaged andeffective employees we need to simultaneously harness their immense talents and buildin safeguards to compensate for their failings. After all, that is what being flexible is allabout.

The future is brightMcDonald’s has been employing Millennials for a decade, and looking at thatexperience they are convinced that if employers can embrace – and in some instancesmitigate – the differences of this new generation, the culture of employer organisationswill be hugely enriched.

Indeed, based on the evidence we have seen from both the literature and McDonald’sexperience, we believe that if you were to define the culture of a Millennial organisationit would have the following characteristics:

. it would be open to the benefits of technology and new ways of working;

. it would ask challenging questions and demand honest answers;

. its employees would not be fixated on status and hierarchy;

. it would encourage meaningful social interaction between employees;

. it would value an individual’s life outside work as much as it values theircontribution to the organisation; and

. it would genuinely care for its people and the communities in which it operates.

Howe and Strauss (1997) may have identified Millennials as the next “Hero” generation– but it is unlikely that even they would go as far as to say that Generation Y are likelyto be the “Perfect Generation”. This said, it is our view that, given the right start,today’s graduates will create organisations that overcome many of the issues thePre-Millennial generations have been wrestling with for decades. If we can help ratherthan hinder this process from the outset, they will undoubtedly thank us for it.

Conclusions and implications for graduate training and developmentSo what conclusions can be drawn from the above discussion for graduatedevelopment ? Research suggests that employers must pay attention to the fit betweengraduates’ expectations of the work place and what they actually experience in order toensure they remain satisfied (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007). In terms of trainingand development this means giving Millennials the kind of development experiencethey want and need to feel secure – even in an insecure economy – thereby harnessingtraining and development as a retention tool (Dolezalek, 2007) as well as one thatenhances their CV (Hira, 2007). It also means giving them the kinds of developmentactivities which reinforce the culture described above so that they become and stayengaged with the organisation. Failure to do so could have serious implications fororganisational effectiveness as more and more Generation Y graduates enter theworkplace and lever their position through sheer numbers and skills. So what kind ofdevelopment experiences will engage Generation Y graduates? The discussion abovesuggests a number of strategies might be adopted.

A newgeneration of

graduates

375

Whilst customisation might pose something of a challenge for organisations withlarge corporate graduate development schemes, Millennials’ desire to understand theirroles and tasks within the organisation and seek early feedback suggests a tailoredapproach might be beneficial. Clearly, the use of multimedia, technologically basedlearning will enable a high degree of customisation. Moreover, the early assignment ofmentoring or coaching support for graduates will be particularly helpful as they lookfor candid perspectives and genuine support (Sayers, 2007). There is evidence that thisalready happens in a number of companies. In fact the assignment of an internal “BabyBoomer" as coach or mentor has been seen as an important means of securingknowledge transfer within an organisation as well. Dolezalek (2007) suggests anotherway to handle the mentoring relationship might be through the development ofCommunities of Practice (COP): groups of Millennials from across the organisationmeeting to share information with colleagues who have similar issues and challenges.This would certainly fit well with Generation Y’s desire for social and interactivelearning. Conference and even workshop activities can foster the creation of suchcommunities.

As we have seen the Millennial generation also has a preference for doing ratherthan listening – for them experience is what counts. Consequently, what is importantis a development programme that is flexible enough to enable them to move laterally aswell as vertically – allowing them to gain knowledge, skills, and experience as they go– all within a wider multi-directional career system. However, the degree to whichgraduates are willing or indeed have the inclination to self manage this process is stillnot clear.

Does all this mean that any classroom delivery is totally taboo? Not necessarily,given Millennials’ predisposition to social interaction and need for mutual support.What it does mean, however, is that given Generation Y’s prowess and comfort withtechnology, together with their in-built need for entertainment, any learningintervention not only has to be creative in its use of technology but flexible,stimulating and exciting and give instant feedback as well.

Whilst this paper has taken a generational perspective, it has at the same timeacknowledged that critics of such an approach have called into question thedistinctiveness of the characteristics which stereotype the Millennials. Much moreresearch is needed across different types and sizes of companies before we can begin togeneralise about what kinds of development activities are appropriate to today’sgraduates. However, in the meantime rather than simply urging caution we wouldargue strongly that managers of graduate development programmes monitor andevaluate their graduates’ expectations and satisfaction, which after all is simply goodmanagement practice.

Finally, development activities which focus simply on those graduates now enteringor about to enter the workplace may not go far enough, for as the McDonald’s case hassuggested there also needs to be a meeting of minds. Generational values, attitudes andpreferences whether they are grounded in empirical data or a product of the popularmedia do exist to some degree and can cause intergenerational misunderstanding,affect workplace dynamics and impede organisational culture change andeffectiveness. Development specialists in organisations would do well to recogniseand address this through intra and intergenerational development processes therebyenhancing their own strategic value to the organisation.

ET50,5

376

References

Allerton, H.E. (2001), “Generation why”, Training & Development, Vol. 55 No. 11, pp. 56-60.

Baruch, Y. (2004), “Transforming careers from linear to multidirectional career paths:organisational and individual perspectives”, Career Development International, Vol. 9No. 1, pp. 58-73.

Bedingfield, C. (2005), “Transforming the ROI of your graduate scheme”, Industrial andCommercial Training, Vol. 37 Nos 4/5, pp. 199-203.

Broadbridge, A.M., Maxwell, G.A. and Ogden, S.N. (2007), “Experiences, perceptions andexpectations of retail employment for Generation Y”, Career Development International,Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 523-44.

Crumpacker, M. and Crumpacker, J.D. (2007), “Succession planning and generational stereotypes:should HR consider age- based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad?”,Public Personnel Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 349-69.

Dolezalek, H.X-Y. (2007), “X-Y vision”, Training, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 22-7.

Eisner, S.P. (2005), “Managing generation Y”, SAMAdvancedManagement Journal, Vol. 70 No. 4,pp. 4-15.

Freifield, I. (2007), “Are you ready for us?”, Training, Vol. 44 No. 6, p. 8.

Furnham, A. (2006), “Brighter futures: the true impact of jobs in the service and hospitality sectoron young people”, internal company report.

Giancola, F. (2006), “The generation gap: more myth than reality”, Human Resource Planning,Vol. 32, p. 37.

Glass, A. (2007), “Understanding generational differences for competitive success”, Industrialand Commercial Training, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 98-103.

Hayman, K. and Lorman, A. (2004), “Graduate training schemes have demonstrably acceleratedpromotion patterns”, Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 123-41.

Hira, N. (2007), “You raised them, now manage them”, Fortune, Vol. 155 No. 9, pp. 38-48.

Holden, R. and Harte, V. (2004), “New graduate engagement with ‘professional development’”,Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 28 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 272-82.

Howe, N. and Strauss, B. (1997), The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, Broadway Books,New York, NY.

Howe, N. and Strauss, B. (2000), Millennials Rising: The Next Greatest Generation, VintageBooks, New York, NY.

Huntley, R. (2006), The World According to Y: Inside the New Adult Generation, Allen andUnwin, Sydney.

Johnson, J.A. and Lopes, J. (2008), “The intergenerational workforce revisited”, OrganizationDevelopment Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 31-6.

Jonas- Dwyer, D. and Pospisil, R. (2004), “The Millennial effect: implications for academicdevelopment”, available at: http://herdsa20004.curtin.edu.my/contributions/RPapers/PO50(accessed March 14, 2008).

Jorgensen, B. (2003), “Baby boomers, generation X and generation Y”, Foresight, Vol. 4 No. 4,pp. 41-9.

King, Z. (2003), “New or traditional careers? A study of UK graduates’ preferences”, HumanResource Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-26.

McDermott, E., Mangan, J. and O’Connor, M. (2006), “Graduate development programmes andsatisfaction levels”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 456-71.

A newgeneration of

graduates

377

Martin, C.A. (2005), “From high maintenance to high productivity: what managers need to knowabout Generation Y”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-44.

Mayrhofer, W., Steyrer, J., Meyer, M., Strunk, G., Schiffinger, M. and Iellatchitch, A. (2005),“Graduates’ career aspirations and individual characteristics”, Human ResourceManagement Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 38-56.

Morton, I.P. (2002), “Targeting Generation Y”, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 46-8.

Murdoch, R. (2005), speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, available at: www.newscorp.com/news/news_247.html (accessed March 10, 2008).

Partridge, H. and Hallam, G. (2006), “Educating the millennial generation for evidence basedinformation practice”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 400-19.

Raines, C. (2002), Managing Millenials, available at: www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm (accessed March 25, 2008).

Sayers, R. (2007), “The right staff from X to Y”, Library Management, Vol. 28 Nos 8/9, pp. 474-87.

Sheahan, P. (2005), Generation Y: Thriving and Surviving with Generation Y at Work, HardieGrant, Prahan.

Shih, W. and Allen, M. (2007), “Working with generation-D: adopting and adapting to culturallearning and change”, Library Management, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 89-100.

Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S. and Freeman, C. (2007), “Attracting generation Y graduates”, CareerDevelopment International, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 504-22.

Tulgan, B. and Martin, C. (2001), Managing Generation Y Global Citizens Born in the Late 70sand Early 80s, HRD Press, Amherst, MA.

Twenge, J.M., Zhang, L. and Im, C. (2004), “It’s beyond my control: a cross-temporalmeta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002”, Personality andSocial Psychology Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 308-19.

Viney, C., Adamson, S. and Doherty, N. (1997), “Paradoxes of fast-track career management”,Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 174-86.

Westerman, J.W. and Yamamura, J.H. (2007), “Generational preferences for work environment fit:effects on employee outcomes”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 150-61.

Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash ofVeterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, AMACOM, New York, NY.

Corresponding authorSue Shaw can be contacted at: S.Shaw@mmu.ac.uk

ET50,5

378

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints